______________________________________________________ R&DUPDATES
WILLIAM H. AVERY
METHANOL FROM OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is a technology for producing electric power from the
solar energy that heats the surface waters of the tropical oceans. The power generated may be used
on an OTEC plantship to produce methanol fuel or other products for shipment to world ports, or at
suitable sites may be transmitted to shore for distribution by the public utilities. The projected cost
would make methanol fuel an economical replacement for unleaded gasoline for motor vehicles,
thereby opening the way to potential production in sufficient quantities to make an important contribution to U.S. efforts to reduce needs for imported petroleum.
The solar energy that is absorbed in the tropical
oceans maintains the temperature of surface waters
at 80°F or above, day and night, throughout the
year. In the same regions at depths of 3000 feet or
lower, the water temperature is always less than
40°F. This fact led F. A. 0' Arsonval to suggest in
1881 that the 40°F temperature difference could be
used to generate power in the same way as the common steam engine if such fluids as liquid ammonia or
propane, which boil at 80°F and produce significant
vapor pressure, were substituted for water in the engine cycle. An alternative to the use of a secondary
fluid in the OTEC concept was proposed by the
French engineer, Georges Claude, and was demonstrated in 1930 at an installation at Matanzas Bay in
Cuba. In this variation, steam produced by lowering
the pressure of the warm water pumped into the system was used to power the turbine. The Claude experiment proved the validity of the OTEC concept,
but the system was not economically attractive at that
time.
When world oil prices started to climb steeply in
1973, investigations of the OTEC concept as an energy alternative were begun in the United States and
have continued to the present. The key components
of the OTEC system based on the ammonia cycle
have now been demonstrated at sea at a power level
of 1 megawatt (MW). Baseline engineering designs
are available for scale-up of this engine cycle on shipboard installations at power levels of 40 to 60 MW
(net electrical output). These demonstration plants
would provide firm cost and performance data for
commercial OTEC installations at power levels of
150 to 300 MW and would provide energy products
and electric power at costs estimated to be competitive with conventional nonrenewable sources.
Volume 5, Number 2, 1984
The electrical energy that is generated by an OTEC
power plant on a ship could be used in many ways to
produce products that could be shipped to shore and
then used as a replacement for petroleum fuel or as
an alternate source of electricity or heat. Economic
studies show that although these ways are technically
feasible, most of the OTEC products would not be
economically attractive at today's prices for fossil
fuel. However, methanol is an exception. An evaluation of the use of OTEC plantships for the synthesis
of methanol indicates that they could produce and
deliver methanol fuel to U.S. ports at projected costs
that would make it competitive with gasoline at present prices, in fuel cost per mile.
OTEC METHANOL
Methanol, or methyl alcohol, is a compound of
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen with the chemical formula CH 3 0H. Methanol is synthesized commercially
in a process that involves two basic steps: (a) carbon
from a source such as natural gas (CH 4 ) or coal is
combined with oxygen to form carbon monoxide and
(b) the carbon monoxide is combined with hydrogen
to form methanol.
In conventional methanol plants, roughly half the
input fuel (natural gas or coal) is burned to provide
heat for the endothermic production of hydrogen for
step (b). Additional energy must be expended for the
production of nitrogen-free oxygen in an air liquefaction plant for step (a). These inefficient processes are
bypassed in the OTEC methanol synthesis, which
uses the electric power generated from solar energy to
produce hydrogen and oxygen simultaneously by
electrolysis of water.
The process for making methanol on an OTEC
plantship is shown schematically in Fig. 1. Pulverized
159
w. H.
Avery - Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
Land
Plantship
Coal:1362 tons/plantship/ day
Sodium carbonate makeup:
39 tons/day
t
Coal
preparation
9.05
kg/ s O2
Gasoline
265,000 gal/day
Combustion
engines
45% 77 LHV *
OTEC
plantship
electric power
190 MWe (peak)
t
I
l
221,000 hp
(7076 bbl/day
oil equivalent)
~
* LHV = low heating value
(water vapor in
product gas)
**HHV = high heating value
(liquid water in
product gas)
181.5
MWe
Mobil
catalytic
conversion
process
Water
electrolysis
77 = 0.9
t
h
~
sea~ater
t
Water
distillation
~.,......;~-_--,I Pure
~-
water 1....-_ _ _ _ _....
~18 MWth TL....-_ _ _ _ _ _ _....
I
I
I
1.14kg/ sH 2
I
Added power ~ Plantship
from
aux power
process heat ....~f--------,r-----1I------+-.....
~ 35 MW
...
I
I
I
I
:
Methanol
Methanol fue l
ce ll electric power, I~
storage
60% 77 HHV **
; - 604,000
tons/ year
Gas clean up
CO shift
Tanker
Catalytic
Methanol
I"'~_ _---I
I'"
converter
1750 tons/ day 20.25 kg/s
CH30H ~----------'
256 MW
Figure 1 - Flow chart of GTEC methanol plantship process. Collier supplies crushed coal on a monthly schedule to coal
gasifiers on board the plantship to produce carbon monoxide. Excess heat of coal oxidation is used to convert water and
coal to additional carbon monoxide and to hydrogen. The electricity generated by the GTEC heat engines (augmented by
electricity derived from process steam of the coal gasifier) is used to electrolyze water to oxygen and hydrogen, which are
used in the coal oxidation and in the carbon monoxide-to-methyl alcohol conversion, respectively. Tankers transport methanol to receiving ports on a monthly schedule.
coal is transported in colliers to the OTEC plantship,
where it provides the carbon source for reaction with
oxygen produced on board to form carbon monoxide. Since this combustion-like reaction is highly
exothermic, steam may be injected simultaneously to
produce hydrogen by the endothermic water-gas reaction (C + H 2 0 - CO + H 2 ) along with additional
carbon monoxide. The gasification reactions take
place in a vessel containing molten sodium carbonate, which not only provides good heat transfer
so that chemical equilibrium is attained rapidly, but
also reacts with the sulfur and ash in the coal to trap
these impurities in the melt. Thus the exit gas is a
nearly pure mixture of CO and hydrogen. The hydrogen output from the water electrolysis plant is added,
and the resulting mixture after further purification is
passed through a catalyst bed to produce methanol as
a product. This process has a high energy efficiency.
The electrolysis of water converts electrical energy to
chemical enthalpy with an efficiency of approximately 90 070, and the excess heat generated in the two reac160
tion steps can be used efficiently to produce steam
that can power the compressors and other process
equipment.
As designed, this process requires 0.78 ton* of coal
to produce 1 ton of methanol, compared with landbased methanol-from-coal plants that require 1.5 to
2.1 tons of coal per ton of methanol produced.
An engineering study has been completed to define
the layout and component requirements of a 160 MW
OTEC plantship that would produce 1750 tons per
day of fuel-grade methanol from 1363 tons per day
of coal. The coal, with other supplies, would be
transported to the OTEC plantship by conventional
freighters, stored, and replenished at approximately
monthly intervals. Similarly, the methanol product
would be stored on board and then delivered by
tanker to mainland ports along with elemental sulfur
recovered from the coal and waste products. Shipping costs would be a minor fraction of the methanol
delivered cost.
* All product and coa l quantities are expressed in metric tons .
John s Hopkins APL Technical Digest
w.
The present design of the methanol plantship has
resulted from two engineering studies conducted
under subcontract. The first, conducted by Brown
and Root Development, Inc. (BARDI) used the following basic data: (a) an in-depth engineering design
and cost analysis prepared by BARDI for a bargemounted methanol-from-natural-gas plant intended
for the use of offshore natural gas supplies, (b) BARDI construction and operating data for an ammoniafrom-coal plant, using the Texaco coal-water slurry
gasifier, installed at Muscle Shoals, Ala., for the
TV A, and (c) information for the OTEC power plant
and the requirements for methanol plant installation
on the plantship derived from the APL baseline design of a 40 MW OTEC ammonia plantship, with ap-
H. Avery - Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
propriate scaling to the 160 MW size determined to
be optimum from this study.
The resulting artist's concept of the 160 MW plantship based on drawings by BARDI is shown in Fig.
2a. The ship is 900 feet long and 330 feet wide and
has a draft of 65 feet. Thus, the size is comparable
wi th that of a supertanker. (A 390,000 ton T-ll
tanker constructed recently at Newport News has the
following dimensions: length, 1188 feet; beam, 228
feet; draft, 75 feet.)
The BARDI study was deliberately based on use of
state-of-the-art components and processes so that the
costs could be estimated accurately. It showed that
the OTEC methanol concept would lead to a product
cost marginally competitive with land-based methan-
(a)
(b)
Cold water
heat exchangers
(typical)
OTEC turbine
Electrolysis
plant - 2 places,
3 decks
Acid gas
removal
CO shift
Gasifiers
Methanol synthesis
and distillation
o
Carbonate
regeneration
Sulfur
recovery
D
Utilities
boilers
and
steam
turbines
Warm water
Warm water
heat exchangers
pumps
pumps and inlets
(typical)
(typical)
(typical)
Figure 2 - (a) Artist 's concept of the 160 MW plantship , based on drawings by BARDI. (b) Schematic layout of a methanol
plantship . OTEC equipment fo r evaporating and condenSing the fl u id (ammonia) driving the electric turbine is mounted on
the fore and aft ends of the plantship. Coa l conversion equipment is mounted on the top deck. Storage for coal and methanol is be low de c k. Tw o cold water pipes extending 3000 feet below the surface are mounted on the ship centerline fore and
aft .
Volume 5, N umber 2, 1984
161
w. H.
Avery - Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
ol-from-coal plant designs. However, the study also
showed that major improvement in output could result from replacement of the coal slurry gasifier,
which was used in the BARDI design because fullscale operating data were available, by a new gasi fier
design using pulverized coal that had been developed
and tested on a 25 ton per day scale by Rockwell International Corp.
Whereas the coal slurry gasifier produces a product gas with approximately equal amounts of carbon
monoxide and unwanted CO 2 , plus gaseous sulfur
compounds (along with hydrogen), the Rockwell design produces nearly pure carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The space requirements for the methanol
plant are also much reduced by use of the Rockwell
gasifier, and the need to handle large quantities of
water associated with the slurry feed stock is avoided.
Accordingly, a second iteration of the OTEC
methanol design study was subcontracted to Rockwell International in association with Ebasco Services, Inc., to define the process layout requirements,
product output, and costs for a 160 MW OTEC
methanol plantship based on the Rockwell gasifier.
The estimated methanol output from this plantship is
1750 tons per day, with coal input of 1336 tons per
day. The space requirements are the same as those
estimated by BARDI for a 1000 ton per day methanol
output from the coal slurry plant. A plan view of the
plantship showing the major plant process sections is
shown in Fig. 2b.
The design study included estimates of the cost of
installing and operating the methanol plant, shipping
coal and other input materials to the plantship, and
shipping methanol and other products to shore.
From these data the cost of methanol delivered to a
U.S. port may be estimated. (In an accurate cost
study, appropriate consideration must be given to the
complex factors that must be evaluated in judging the
requirements for financing the plant construction
and operation over the plant lifetime; the requirements depend on the specific organizations involved.) The estimates indicate that the delivered cost
of OTEC methanol at U.S. ports after 1990 would be
in the range of 48<r to 62<r per gallon (in mid-1983
dollars).
Methanol is of particular interest because of its
demonstrated effectiveness as a high octane automobile fuel with the potential to replace unleaded
gasoline at costs below today's prices. Automobile
tests conducted by the Bank of America in California
during the past three years with a fleet of over 300
cars show that, in automobile operation on a centsper-mile basis, 60<r per gallon for methanol would be
equivalent to 80<r per gallon for unleaded gasoline,
indicating an attractive profit potential for OTEC
methanol even at today's gasoline prices.
tem develops a net electric output (after allowance
for pumping power, ship operation, and personnel
needs) equal to 3/ 4 of the gross power generated.
This equates to conversion to net electrical energy of
2.5070 of the heat extracted from the surface water
that passes through the plant.
The annual average rate of solar heat absorption
by the tropical oceans has been measured to be approximately 20 watts per square foot, or 600 MW
(thermal) per square mile. Part of the heat (40070) is
reradiated as infrared energy to the upper atmosphere and space, and the remainder is dissipated
through evaporation, waves and currents. Conversion of a significant fraction of the solar input to
electric power would disturb the natural pattern and
could raise environmental questions. Therefore, let
us assume that grazing OTEC plants will be spaced so
that they extract only 0.5 MW (net) per square mile
of tropical ocean, i.e., less than 0.1070 of the solar input. This heat use would be well below the range of
random changes in heat flow produced by clouds and
currents and is a conservative estimate for OTEC operation without deleterious environmental effects.
With this criterion, we may estimate the world potential for OTEC operation.
Figures 3 and 4 show the temperature difference
between the surface and 3280 foot (1000 meters)
depth in the world's oceans. The area enclosed by the
40°F contours is approximately 23 million square
miles. Therefore, if 0.5 MW of net power were extracted per square mile, the total OTEC power that
could be generated would be approximately 10 7 MW.
The total electric power generation in the U.S. in
1980 was 2.5070 of this amount.
The energy that could be supplied to the U.S. via
OTEC-methanol fuel is shown in Fig. 5, in comparison with the consumption of fuel and power
from present sources. Figure 5 shows that OTEC
methanol could provide a renewable energy source
capable of contributing in a major way to the reduction of U.S. demands for nonrenewable fuels. It is
worth noting that the potential supply of energy via
OTEC methanol in one year would match the total
proven reserves in the U.S. of oil and natural gas liquids, plus natural gas, plus uranium.
The potential energy contribution that could be
supplied by OTEC-generated ammonia is also
shown. Although ammonia is not economically attractive now as a fuel, it could become important in
the future because it would provide a storable fuel
whose combustion would not generate carbon dioxide, which threatens to produce a greenhouse effect
in the atmosphere. Ammonia has been shown to be
an efficient fuel for automobiles, yielding approximately the same miles per gallon as methanol.
OTEC PROGRAM STATUS
OTEC RESOURCE
Engineering calculations supported by experimental results show that if the temperature difference between warm and cold water is 40°F, the OTEC sys162
When studies beginning in 1973 showed that
OTEC promised to be technically and economically
feasible, R&D programs were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and its predecessor to investigate
Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest
w. H.
(5
Avery - Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
..
+'"
~ ~~~~~----~~~~~=-~----~--~--~----~~~~---0-
~----~~~~
W
Figure 3 - Temperature contour lines (in degrees Farenheit) between the ocean surface and the 3280 foot depth . The dark
green areas encompass the potential areas of operation by OTEC.
o~----~----~----~------~--~~
600
+-'
ClJ
1200
~
.s
Q.
ClJ
0
1800
2400
3000
35
45
55
65
75
85
Temperature (OF)
Figure 4 - Typical vertical temperature profile showing the
gradient between the ocean surface and the ocean bottom.
the technical questions for which pOSItIve answers
were essential to the success of OTEC. A facility was
established at the Argonne National Laboratory for
conducting experimental tests on heat exchanger designs suitable for OTEC to confirm the predicted performance, and a broad program was initiated to devise ways to cope with the expected loss of performance that would occur when marine organisms attached themselves to the heat exchanger surfaces. An
engineering investigation was launched to provide
basic understanding and experimental verification of
construction and deployment techniques that would
be suitable for building, installing, and operating
cold water pipes tens of feet in diameter and 3300 feet
long, suspended from a ship. A design of a complete
OTEC shipboard system was required that would
survive the worst storms predicted to occur in a 100
year period in the tropical oceans. These problems
Volume 5, Number 2, 1984
have all been addressed and solved at a 1 MW scale
during the past nine years.
In 1979, a complete OTEC system, called MiniOTEC, with a cold water pipe 2200 feet long and 28
inches in diameter was mounted on a ship and tested
at sea for four months in Hawaii (Fig. 6). The development was a joint effort of Lockheed, Dillingham
Corp., the State of Hawaii, and the Alpha Laval
Corp. The system delivered 60 kW of gross power
and confirmed the expected performance. The experiment was repeated in 1981 under DOE funding at 1
MW size in a ship called OTEC-l, which had an 8
foot diameter cold water pipe 2300 feet long (Fig. 7).
Again, although the test was terminated after four
months because funds were withdrawn, the performance confirmed the predictions for the test period.
In both experiments, biofouling of the heat exchangers was prevented by chlorine injection at a
level far below the limits set by EPA for environmental safety of marine life. Other nonchemical methods
of control (brushes, ultrasonics, etc.) have also been
tested. Tests of a 1/30 scale model of the OTEC ship
with a gimballed cold water pipe connection conducted in a wave tank confirmed the system survivability in a simulated sea environment representing the
most severe storm expected to be encountered in the
operating area over a period of 100 years.
The next step is to demonstrate operation of complete OTEC systems at a size large enough to provide
data that would veri fy the predicted construction and
operational costs, which are comparable on a dollarsper-kilowatt basis with coal and nuclear cost projections when fully commercialized.
Engineering designs are available for 40 MW demonstration plants that could be moored offshore in
Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or other islands and that could
transmit power directly to a utility network on shore
through an underwater cable 2 or 3 miles long; designs are also available for OTEC plantships that
could cruise in the tropical oceans to produce 114
tons per day of ammonia for periodic shipment to
163
W. H. A very -
I:
0
.~
c.
Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
Coal
15.5
Oil and natural
gas liquids
34
Natural gas
20
Uranium
2.7
Hydroelectric
3.4
E
~
1:-
0 0
(.)00
.0)
en ....
=>~
:I
I:
I:
<C
Total U.S.
~
75
....:I
c. ... OTEC Ammonia
275
.~ !1 m
ai°>....
u ...
Ow
CI)
Q.. .... C.
OTEC Methanol
975
0
Coal
6000
80,000
III
CI)
~
~
Oil and natural
gas liquids
470
Proven
~
0
Natural gas
Ultimate
500
=>
~
....'0
Uranium
without breeder
680
shore. A conceptual design is also available for a
60 MW OTEC methanol demonstration plantship
that would produce 660 tons per day of methanol.
Two companies were funded by the Department of
Energy to produce conceptual designs of bottommounted OTEC plants to be sited a few hundred
yards offshore for electric power generation in
Hawaii. One contract has been awarded for a followon preliminary engineering design of this concept.
The contractor has stated his intention to continue
the development with private funds. Engineering designs are being completed for the 160 MW OTEC
methanol plantship discussed above that would produce 1750 tons per day of methanol.
Despite the great promise of this work, support of
OTEC development by the U.S. Department of
Energy is very small. However, the interest expressed
by one company in the U.S. in developing a 40 MW
bottom-supported OTEC plant in Hawaii entirely
with private funds is encouraging. In contrast,
French, Dutch, and Swedish programs are receiving
active government and private support. The Japanese
government and industry are supporting an active
OTEC program that features construction of a 10
MW plant for the island of Nauru. This may allow
them to take the leading role in commercialization of
this technology, which they believe will lead to a
significant export market for OTEC plants in the
Pacific as well as to significant contributions to the
Japanese economy.
84,000
Uranium
with breeder
CONCLUSION
2500
0
800
400
Quads (10 15 Btu)
1200
Fi~ure 5 - United States energy consumption (1 quad =
10 5Stu) in 1980 by fuel type, potential renewable OTECgenerated reserves, and total reserves of nonrenewable
fuels. The assumption made for OTEC output is that the engine cycle efficiency is 2.5% and that 1/30 of the net power
potentially available is used. The U.S. reserves of natural
gas and oil are insufficient to avoid large-scale importation
of oil or shift to a coal- and/or nuclear-based energy supply
in the next decade unless heavy reliance is placed on solarbased renewable resources. [Data for conventional sources
from National Research Council, 1979.]
OTEC is a technology that could produce inexhaustible supplies of fuels, chemical products, and
electric power at costs low enough and in amounts
large enough to make a significant impact on world
energy needs with minimum environmental effects.
The technology has been demonstrated at a 1 MW
scale and is now ready for large-scale demonstration
as a prelude to commercial production.
OTEC methanol offers promise as an economical
replacement for gasoline now, and OTEC ammonia
appears attractive as a future replacement of ammonia now made from natural gas. In the future,
Figure 6 - The Mini-OTEC demonstration ship.
164
Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest
w. H. Avery -
Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
Figure 7 - The OTEC-1 1 megawatt demonstration ship.
ammonia could become a practical basic fuel to replace present carbonaceous fuels, which are adding
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and will eventually
produce an intolerable greenhouse effect if not curtailed. OTEC electric power transmitted ashore by
underwater cable would be economical in Puerto
Rico, Hawaii, and other island sites. This would lead
to significant benefits to the island economics, which
now depend on oil.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PUBLI CATIONS
I. H. L. Olsen, G. L. Dugger, W. B. Shippen, and W. H . Avery,
" Preliminary Considerations for the Selection of a Working Medium
for the Solar Sea Power Plant, " Solar Sea Power Plant Conf. and
Workshop, A . Lavi, ed., NSF Grant GI-39115, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Pittsburgh (27-28 Jun 1973).
2. G. L. Dugger, H . L. Olsen, W. B. Shippen, E. J. Francis, and W. H .
Avery, "Ocean Thermal Power Plant s," APL Tech . Dig. 14, 2-20
(1975).
3. G. L. Dugger, "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Solar Energy for
Earth, an AIAA Assessment AIAA 10,82-97 (1975) .
4. G. L. Dugger, H . L. Olsen, W. B. Shippen, E. J. Francis, and W. H.
Avery, "Tropical Ocean Thermal Power Plants Producing Ammonia
or Other Products, " in Proc. Third Workshop on Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion (OTEC), JHU I APL SR 75-2 (Aug 1975).
5. G . L. Dugger, H. L. Olsen, W. B. Shippen, E. J . Francis, and W . H .
Avery, "Floating Ocean Thermal Power Plants and Potential Products," J . Hydronaut. 9,129-141 (1975).
.
6. G. L. Dugger , "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, " Astronaut.
Aeronaut. 13,58-63 (1975).
7. G. L. Dugger, E. J. Francis, and W. H . Avery, "Technical and
Economic Feasibility of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," J. Sol.
Energy Sci. Tech. Solar Energy, Pergamon Press, Victoria, Australia
(1977).
8. G . L. Dugger , "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," in Energy
Technology Handbook, D. M. Considine, ed., McGraw-Hili, New
York, pp. 6-118 - 6-136 (1977) .
9. G . L. Dugger, H . L. Olsen, P. P . Pandolfini, and W. H . Avery, "Experiments on and Design of Low-Cost Aluminum Heat Exchangers for
OTEC Plant-Ships ," JHU I APL AEO-77-073 (1977); also in Proc.
Fourth OTEC Conf. (1977).
10. E. J . Francis and J. Seelinger, "Market Definition, Commercial
Development Plan, and OTEC Financing: A Summary of 1976 APL
Work for the U.S. Maritime Administration," in Proc. Fourth OTEC
Conf. (1977).
II. E. J . Franci s and J . Seelinger, "Forecast Markets, Economics and
Shipbuilding Program for OTEC/ lndustrial Plant-Ships in Tropical
Oceans," in Proc. Solar Wo rld and a Solar Market, 1977 Meeting of
the International Solar Energy Society, Orlando, Fla. (1977) .
12 . G. L. Dugger and E. J. Francis, "Design of an Ocean Thermal Energy
Plant Ship to Produce Ammonia via H ydrogen," Int . J. Hydrogen
Energy (1977) .
13 . G. L. Dugger , E. J. Francis, and W. H. Avery, "Technology and
Economic Feasibility of OTEC," Sol. Energy 20,259-274 (1978) .
Volume 5, Number 2, 1984
14. P. P . Pandolfini , W. H . Avery, J . Jones , and L. R. Berger, "The Effect of Biofouling and Cleaning on the External Heat Transfer of
Large Diameter Tubes," in Proc. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC) Biofouling and Corrosion Symp., Seattle, pp . 167-179
(1978).
15 . E. J. Francis and G. L. Dugger, "Missions and Commercial Opportunities, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)," in Proc. 1978
Offshore Technology Conf. IV, OTDC Paper 3337, Houston (1978).
16. J. F. George, "System Design Considerations for a Floating OTEC
Modular Experiment Platform, " in Sixth OTEC Conf. Proc.,
Washington (1979).
17 . D. Richards, P. J. McEvaddy, and L. L. Perini, "Off-Design Performance and Control Considerations for an OTEC Plantship," in Sixth
OTEC Conf. Proc., Washington (1979).
18 . E. J. Francis, J. F. Babbitt, and M. H . Nordquist, "Commercial
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Plants by the Mid1980's, " in Sixth OTEC Conf. Proc., Washington (1979).
19. P. P. Pandolfini, W. H . Avery, and F . K. Hill, "Experiments of
Ultrasonic Cleaning of a Shell-Less Folded Aluminum-Tube OTEC
Heat Exchanger," in Sixth OTEC Conf. Proc., Washington (1979).
20. G. L. Dugger, " Is There a Chance for OTEC?," Astronaut. Aeronaut.
36-42 (1979).
21. w. H . Avery and G. L. Dugger, "Contribution of Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion to World Energy Needs," Int . 1. Ambient Energy,
1,177-190(1980) .
22. W. H . Avery, "Grazi ng OTEC Plantships - Technical Status, Potential Products , and Costs," in Proc. National Conf. Renewable Energy
Technologies, Honolulu (1980).
23. W. H. Avery, "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Contribution to the
Energy Needs of the United States," Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. I,
101-107 (1980) .
24. E. N. Balko and W. H . Avery, "Fuel Cell Efficiency in a Combined
Electrochemical-Thermochemical Process," Int. 1. Hydrogen Energy
6,255-266 (1981).
25. D. Richards, J. F. George, and J. S. Seward, "Design of 40-MW Grazing and Moored OTEC Pilot Demonstration Plants," J. Energy 5,
224-230 (1981).
26 . G . L. Dugger , R. W. Henderson, E. J . Francis, and W. H. Avery,
"Projected Costs for Electricity and Product s from OTEC Facilities
and Plantships ," 1. EnergyS,231-236(1981).
27 . E. J. Francis, W. H . Avery, and G. L. Dugger, "The Cost of Ocean
Thermal Energy," Na t. Estimator 2,30-34 (1981) .
28 . J. F. George and D. Richards, "Model Basin Tests of Ocean Wave
Responses for a 40-MW OTEC Pilot Plant," J. Sol. Energy Eng. 104,
46-55 (1982).
29. F. Weiskopf, D. Richards, G. Dailey , and M. McCormick, "Ai r
Driven Counter Rotating Wave Turbine: Modeling and Test Development," in Proc. Fifth Miami Int. Conf. Alternative Energy Sources
(1982).
30 . G. L. Dugger, D. Richards, E. J . Francis, and W. H . Avery, "Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion: Historical Hi ghlights , Status, and
Forecast," J. Energy 7,293 (1983) .
31. G. L. Dugger, F. E. Naef, and J . E. Snyder, III , "Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion," Chap. 19 in Solar Energy Handbook, McGrawHill, New York (1979).
32. P . P. Pandolfini, G . L. Dugger, and LA . Funk, "Tests of the APL!JHU Folded-Tube Heat Exchanger Core Unit as a Condenser," J .
Energy (1980).
33. P . P. Pandolfini, G. L. Dugger, and J. A . Funk, "Test Results for the
APL!JHU Folded-Tube Aluminum Condenser , " AIAA 81-4317, J.
Energy 5,395 (1981).
165
W. H. Avery -
Methanol from Ocean Thermal Energy
34. W. H . Avery and D. Richards, "Design of a 160 MW OTEC Plantship
for Production of Methanol, " OCEA S '83, San Francisco (29 Aug
- I Sep 1983).
35. W. H. Avery, D. Richards, W . G. Niemeyer, and J. D. Shoemaker,
"OTEC Energy via Methanol Production ," in Proc. 18th Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Con/. (1983).
P RESENTA TlO S
I. G . L. Dugger, H. L. Olsen, W. B. Shippen, E. J. Francis, and W . H.
Avery, "Tropical Ocean Thermal Power Plants and Potential Products," AlAA Paper No. 75-617, AIAA/ AAS "Solar Energy for
Earth" Conf., Los Angeles (21-24 Apr 1975)
2. G. L. Dugger and E. J. Francis, "Maritime Aspects of Producing
P roducts at OTEC Plants at Sea and Delivering Them to the United
States," "Energy from the Oceans - Fact or Fantasy?" Conf., North
Carolina State University, Division of Continuing Research, Raleigh,
N.C. (27-29 Jan 1976); also JHUI APL AEO-76-041 (Jan 1976) .
3. G. L. Dugger and E. J. Franci s, "Design of an Ocean Thermal Energy
Plant Ship to Produce Ammonia via H ydrogen," First World
Hydrogen Conf., Miami (1-3 Mar 1976).
4 . H. L. Ol sen, P . P . Pandolfini, R. W. Blevins, G. L. Dugger, and W. H.
Avery, "Design of Low-Cost Aluminum Heat Exchangers for OTEC
Plant Ships," Int. Sol. Energy Soc. Conf., "Sharing the Sun," Winnipeg(l5-20Aug 1976) .
5. G. L. Dugger, E. J. Franci s, and W. H . Avery, "Technical and
Economic Feasibility of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,"
J H U/ APL AEO-76-060 (Aug 1976); al so Int. Sol. Energy Soc. Conf.,
"Sharing the Sun," Winnipeg (15-20 Aug 1976).
6. W. H. Avery, "Ocean Thermal Energy - Status and Prospect s," MTS
J. 2; special symposi um sponsored by the Marine Technology Society 's
Committee on the Economic Potential of the Ocean and by the
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers,
Rosslyn, Va. (15 Sep 1977) .
7. D. Richards and L. L. Perini , "OTEC Pilot Plant Heat Engine, " OTC
3592, II th Offshore Technology Conf., Houston (30 Apr-3 May
1979).
8. J. F. Babbitt and E. J . Franci , "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
- An Alternate Source for Ammonia," Fertilizer Institute 1979
Marketing Conf. (Jun 1979) .
9. J. F. George and D. Richards, "Preliminary Design of a Crui si ng
OTEC Modular Experiment," 14th Intersociet y Energy Conversion
Eng. Conf. , Boston (Aug 1979) .
10. W. H . Avery, "The OTEC Contribution to Energy Needs of All
Regions of the U.S.," IEEE 1980 Region 6 Conf. (20 Feb 1980; revi sed
28 Feb 1980).
II. E. J . Franci s and G. L. Dugger , "Promising Applications of OTEC,"
Seventh Energy Technology Conf., Washington (24-26 Mar 1980) .
12 . J . F. George and D. Richards, " Design and Integration of a 40 MWe
Floating OTEC Pilot Plant," Seventh Ocean Energy Conf.,
Washington (2-5 J un 1980).
13. E. J. Franci s, W . H . Avery, and G . L. Dugger, "Com pari on of Cost
Estimates, Sharing Potential s, Subsidies and Uses for OTEC Facilities
and Plant ships," Seventh O cean Energy Conf.,Washington (2-5 Jun
1980).
14. D. Richards, J. F. George, and J . S. Seward, " Design of 40-MW Grazing and Moored OTEC Pilot Demon stration Plant s," IECEC '80 15th
Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conf., " Energy to the
21 st Century," Seattle (18-22 Aug 1980) .
15 . G. L. Dugger, R. W . Henderson , E. J. Franci s, and W . H . A ve ry,
" Projected Costs for Electricity and Product s from OTEC Facilities
and Plant ships," IECEC '80, "Energy to the 2 1st Century," Seattle
(18-22 Aug 1980) .
16 . D. Richards, E. J. Franci s, and G. L. Dugger, "Conceptual Designs
for Commercial OTEC-Ammonia Product Plant ships," Third Miami
Int. Conf. Alternati ve Energy Sources, Miami Beach (15-17 Dec 1980) .
17 . P. P. Pandolfini, J. L. Keirsey, G . L. Dugger, and W. H . Avery,
"Alc\ad-Aluminum, Folded-Tube Heat Exchangers for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Third Miami Int. Conf. Alternative Energy
Sources, Miami Beach (15-17 Dec 1980) .
18. G . L. Dugger, D. Richard , J. F. George, and W. H . A very, "Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion," J HU / APL AEO-8 1-13; also Seminar
166
on Energy Option s for Developing Count ries, Madras, India (23 -27
Feb 1981).
19 . F. K. Hill, P . P . Pandolfini , G. L. Dugger, and W. H. Avery,
"Biofouling Removal by Ultrasonic Radiation, " CORROSION/ 8 1,
Int. Corrosion Forum spon so red by the at. Assoc. Corrosion Eng .,
Toronto (6-10 Apr 1981) .
21. J. George and D. Richards, "Model Basin Tests of a Baseline 40 MW
OTEC Pilot Plant," Ei ghth Ocean Energy Conf., Washington (7-11
Jun 1981).
22. G. L. Dugger, F. C. Paddi son, and L. L. Perini, "Geothermal Enhanced OTEC (GEOTEC) Resources and P lant Concepts," Eighth
Ocean Energy Conf. , Washington (7-11 Jun 1981)
23. D. Richards and R. W . Henderson, "OTEC Produced Ammonia - An
Alternative Fuel," Eighth Ocean Energy Conf., Washington (7 - 11 Jun
1981) .
24. E. J . Francis , D. Richards, and W . W. Rogalski, " Building Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion Faci li ties a nd Pla nt ships - Req uirements
for Unique Construction Faci lities," Eighth Ocean Energy Conf.,
Washington (7-11 Jun 1981).
25 . W . H . Avery, "OTEC Methanol: A New Approach," Int. Conf.
Ocean Resource Development in the Pacific, H onolulu (13- 15 Oct
1981) .
26. R. Manley, J . Bluestein, and E. J. Francis, "An Estimate of OTEC
Costs , Market Potential and Proof-of-Concept Vessel Financing,"
AlAA Second Terrestrial Energy Systems Conf., Colorado Springs
(1-3 Dec 1981) .
27 . G. L. Dugger, D. Richards, F. C. Paddi son, L. L. Perini , W. H . Avery,
and P . J . Ritzcovan, "Alternative Ocean Energy Product s and Hybrid
Geothermal-OTEC (GEOTEC) Plants ," AIAA Second Terrestrial
Energy System s Conf., Colorado Spring (1-3 Dec 1981) .
28 . G . L. Dugger, D. Richards, E. J . Francis, L. L. Perini , W. H . Avery,
and P. J . Ritzcovan , " OTEC Energy Products and GEOTEC Plants,"
ASME Solar Energy Technical Conf. , Albuquerque (Apr 1982).
29. E. J. Franci s, "OTEC in Pan America," Second National Conf.
Renewable Energy Technologies, San Juan (I -7 Aug 1982) .
30. E. J. Francis and D. Richards, " OTEC - Status and Potential of
Private Funding," OCEA S '82 MTS-IEEE Conf. Exposition,
Washington (20-22 Sep 1982) .
31. W. H. Avery and D. Richards, " OTEC Methanol," OCEANS ' 82
MTS- IEEE Conf. Exposition, Washington (20-22 Sep 1982).
32 . G. L. Dugger, L. L. Perini, D. Ri chards, J. A . Whelan, and P. J . Ritzcovan, "Geothermal-Enhanced OTEC (GEOTEC) Resources and
Plant Performance Estimates," OCEA S ' 82 MTS-IEEE Conf. Exposition , Washington (20-22 Sep 1982).
33. E. J. Franci s, "OTEC, Industrial Plant Vessels for Power and Product s," I ndustrial Plant Vessel Seminar, Washington (14 Oct 1982).
34 . G . L. Dugger, L. L. Perini, and D. Richards, "Hybrid GeothermalOcean Thermal Energy Conversion (GEOTEC) Power Plant Analysis
and Cost Estimates," Fifth Miami Conf. Alternative Energy Sources,
Miami Beach (13-15 Dec 1982).
35. D. Richards, G. L. Dugger, and F . P. Wei skopf, "Ocean Energy
Systems," Int. Symp. Work shop on Renewable Energy Sources,
Lahore, Paki stan (17-22 Mar 1982) .
36 . W . H. Avery, "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Cape Cod Community College, Mass. (13 Mar 1983) and the Maritime Square Club of
Baltimore (17 Mar 1983).
37 . W. H . Avery , "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC): A Major
ew Source of Fuels and Power, " Resources for the Future,
Washington (30 Mar 1983) .
38 . G . L. Dugger, L. L. Perini, D. Richards, and F. C. Paddi son, "The
Potential for a H ybrid Geothermal-Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(GEOTEC) Power Plant Installation at Adak Island, Alaska," 18th
Intersociet y Energy Conversion Eng. Conf. , "Energy for the
Marketplace," Orlando, Fla. (21-26 Aug 1983) .
39. W . H. Avery, D. Richards, W . G . iemeyer, and J . D. Shoemaker,
" OTEC Energy via Methanol Production ," 18th Intersociet y Energy
Conversion Eng . Conf., Orlando , Fla . (21-26 Aug 1983).
40 . W . H. Avery and D. Richards, "Design of a 160 MW OTEC Plantship
for P roduction of Methanol," OCEANS '83, San Franci sco (29 Aug-l
Sep 1983).
41. W. H . Avery, "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, Status and Prospect s," School for Advanced International Studies, The Johns
H opkins University, Washington (28 Mar 1984) .
Johns Hopkins A PL Technical Digest